Carbon Price announced today

Yeah, cos a tax is exactly the same as invading another country and killing it's citizens.

 

I can see I'm going to have to run the numbers and work out at what point it becomes cheaper to have my own power plant. Mains gas is pretty cheap compared to electricity. A 3KW gas powered unit would be sufficient. Could even be a business model in there somewhere. Mains electricity could just be a backup.

 

See, the carbon tax is working already.

Oh ye of little faith.

 

Thank god we have governments to tax us so that we can change to suit their model for citizens. 1984 anyone?

The only people who want liberty and control.over their choices are terrorists. So if you don't like our carbon tax fuck off back to Iraq.

Is that the kind of attitude you're hoping for?

 

Yes, if people have been misrepresenting the issue that does annoy me.

What specifically are you suggesting that Al Gore has misrepresented? It's hard to debate a point if I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Phil Jones has been reinstated after being cleared of all charges of scientific misconduct, which I'm sure you knew.

As for the Nasa retraction, that's part of the scientific process - papers are written and then found to be incorrect all the time. One particular paper isn't particularly important in the big scheme of things, especially since there are a number of other studies that haven't been retracted.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri? Yeah, the Daily Telegraph made a bunch of accusations about him which they later apologised for after they were found to have been incorrect, but don't let that get in the way of a good story... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/sep/01/rajendra-pachauri-ipcc

 

If you can show decent evidence that climate change is incorrect then go ahead, I'm all ears. Otherwise to compare it with 'intelligent design', which is about as anti-scientific as it gets is just plain insulting. Saying something over and over, in this case that climate change is a religious belief, doesn't make it true.

As for the rest of your post, I'm quite open to debate about the merits of a particular proposal as to the best way to deal with the issue. I was actually glad when the carbon trading bill was killed as I thought it was just bad policy for many reasons, and I still have reservations about the implementation of this carbon tax, but like I said earlier - to say that it's the end of the world is just silly.

 

I like the fact none of you climate fanatics have said anything about the fact that the creator of the weather channel (who probably knows something about weather...) and 30,000 climate scientists including 9000 PhD's are suing Al Gore because it is bullshit.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Also the most obvious sign that it is a lie. Gore and co always talk about the debate being over, while never actually having had a debate. And because the "debate is ovver" they refuse to debate anything...
Ponzi scheme anyone?

 

I'm sure you said the same thing about global warming which was the last big doomsday thing. We had this same debate going over global warming until they gave up as they realised that you can actually measure temperatures (which haven't gone up in the last 15 years). That is why they moved to "climate change", you can't measure it.
"Look a ___ (insert word of choice: volcano, hurricane, tsunami, flood, bushfire, typhoon, earthquake) they never used to happen before we started creating CO2. I think a tax would stop these happening so let's try that.

 

On the contrary, I think the court case should be really interesting.

 

Climate change and global warming is the same thing, just rephrased because the effect isn't just going to be a slight temperature increase. 2005 and 2010 are the hottest years on record so I don't know how you can say that temperatures haven't gone up at all in the last 15 years. Yes, I know that 1998 was the next warmest year on record...

I've never said that <insert natural disaster here> was caused by global warming, and I doubt you'll find any reputable climate scientists saying that either so maybe you should stick to arguing facts.

 

Global Warming An overall warming of the planet, based on average temperature over the entire surface.

Climate Change Changes in regional climate characteristics, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind, and severe weather events.

They are not the same things, they changed them because people go cluey about the temperature.
Now if it's colder/hotter than average anywhere it is "climate change" because for some reason if the weather isn't always the same then the planet is broken, with a tax being the only way to fix it.

 

from wikipedia

 

I think you'll find it was actually one weatherman who wanted to sue him (back in 2008) and 30,000 regular people who signed a petition to "do something about Al Gore", including 9000 people who have PhDs in some field which may or may not have anything remotely to do with climate science.

 

Dwayne, are you for real? How can you claim to be across the data, science, politics, indeed the whole debate, and not know immediately what Al Gore has misrepresented.

You need to go back and look at the debate, not the client change propaganda. The legendary efforts of Al Gore are very easy to find for anyone who is remotely interested in finding things out for themselves.

 

I'm simply asking for something specific to address. Go on, it should be easy.

 

Look up information about his infamous hockey stick graph
The one he had to get on a cherry picker to get to the top of.
The one where no matter what data you put in it it always ended up like that.

 

I'm just going to stop here. Some people are trapped in the box and there is not much you can do about it. They think that politicians are here to save us and if they make millions along the way then it was just coincidental, if they make policies to take our freedoms it was just accidental.
I used to that government was awesome and the UN tops, I actually wanted to work for them. However once you take the red pill there is no going back.
Enjoy your big government and ever shortening list of freedoms.

 

I'm not arguing the point with you. You need to come to your own decisions. But you seem to be lacking knowledge in an area that any informed person should be completely across.
If that's the case then you should be reconsidering where you get your information from and why they are not informing you.

 

I think he's talking about some of the court cases where Al Gore was challenged on the "facts" presented in An Inconvenient Truth.

One of the cases that keeps being brought up in that context is Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills where a school administrator in the UK sued their education department over distributing the film to all the schools in the UK. In a nutshell, the judge found that some of Al Gore's views in some areas were a bit sensationalist and that the the footnotes in the teacher's reference pack needed to be redrafted (wow, controversy!). It also confirmed that the mainstream scientific community are in consensus that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon and that it is caused by CO2 emissions.

Of course since that case (in 2007) the science has improved to the point where more recent studies are able to link extreme weather events to increased greenhouse gas emissions, so "Error No. 8" in that case (that climate change caused Hurricane Katrina) is perhaps not so much an error after all.

The full findings of the court can be found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

 

I saw some scenes from "Day after Tomorrow" last night where climate change caused a paradoxical ice age when CO2 is supposed to be warming.

Thats how the masses are moved. Brainwashing.

An Inconvenient Truth (sic) is more from the same stable. I dont know what the people 100 years from now will think of the gullible masses now, at least I know there are still some sane people.